Home | Feature | PARLIAMENT: IS IT A TRUE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE

PARLIAMENT: IS IT A TRUE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE

09/03/2017 02:10:00 By Vusi Kunene

Font size:

It is encouraging to see what our Parliament is doing, at least this time. For the first time I have seen Parliament standing its ground and rejecting a budget by the minister of Finance in the little time that I had followed what is happening in Parliament. Maybe it is a good sign of things to come.

I am not yet convinced though. This is due to the timing of their act and I am persuaded to agree with those who say parliamentarians are now campaigning for the coming elections and want to be seen as representatives of the people. Where have they been all these years that the minister has been presenting a budget that does not speak to the people’s needs.

To then be seen starting to act for the people when the sun is setting on their term makes me remain sceptical. But well done parliamentarians if you will not then soften and change your stand. With some parliamentarian also pushing for the budget to be adopted, the change of your stand is a possibility.

That said though, I am worried if what the parliamentarians are doing is what the people who elected them want. Section 84 of the Constitution provides that the people of Swaziland have a right to be heard and represented by their own freely chosen representatives in the government of the country. My concern in the section is that the people must be heard and the mode of sending the message is their freely chosen representatives. Freely chosen or not is not for discussion today but there are people chosen to represent the people. But are these ‘freely chosen’ representatives sending the message of the people to government. I beg to differ.

Concern

Basing my submission on the example of the budget, parliamentarians know that every year in February there is a budget that is presented by the minister of Finance. My concern though, and I may be wrong, is that our ‘freely chosen’ representatives do not call the people they represent to discuss with them what they wish to see in the budget. They unilaterally think what is good for the people and in that way we cannot then say the people are heard through their representatives because what appears at the end of the day is what the representatives think is good for the people.
The chosen representatives rejected the budget and gave the minister 48 hours to come back with a revised budget. Was the 48 hours good enough for the chosen representatives to have consulted with those they represent to find out what they thought and want in the budget?

I do not think so. Most people are at work during the week and they could not have met their representatives to give him or her views. I therefore want to believe that what those will be presented is not the views of all they represent. That is if they did consult their constituencies on this. Unfortunately this was not the case from my inkhundla as I was waiting and willing to make my voice heard.
A number of legislation are debated and passed in Parliament without the people knowing what is being debated and passed. I just wonder where the representatives got the mandate if the people do not know about the laws that are passed by them. Other laws or Bills that are supported by the people take a long time to be passed.

An example is the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill that has taken years in Parliament to pass. We have heard people crying for this Bill. Yet the laws dealing with elections were passed within a short time during the last Parliament.
Lastly, I want to refer to Section 84 (2) of the Constitution which speaks of representation of women and other marginalised groups. If we had good representation by those we elected, we would be having an equitable representation of these groups. Do we have a representative of the LGBTI community in Parliament? Do we have a representative of people with disabilities?

Do we have an equitable representation of women? If not, then why? because the people we chose should be looking at these things. I will not fall for the argument that they are waiting for some enabling instrument because the Constitution is clear on what should happen, at least on the representation of women. Section 86 mandates the House to form an electoral college and cater for this. So which other instrument are they waiting for because the supreme law of the land is clear?